The following scenario seems to be the most probable. The scribe writes "whereunto" and is then instructed to strike it out. The scribe dips his pen in the ink since a strikeout is usually done with great emphasis. The scribe strikes it out by drawing two sawtooth shaped lines through "whereunto." The strike out lines have much more pronounced down strokes than upstrokes. After the last strikeout line was drawn, the scribe continues the dictation at "unto" without dipping his pen in ink again. Thus, the ink tone and volume in the last strokes of the strikeout are the same as the word "unto."

Seems reasonable to me, dblagent007.

_________________“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”

Well, Will takes pride in his list, racking up academics who support his crazy theses, and he was insulted that you, an academic, weren't convinced.

Logically, that makes you spineless. Right? ;)

I mean it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that only BYU academics are backing him up.

Well, frankly, I don't even know why I should feel insulted by this because it is really all so silly. First of all, I am a historian, not a text critic. Second, I have never closely examined the KEP. So, I readily admit that I could be absolutely wrong about everything. I see this as something of recreational interest. If anything, I am mostly surprised by the almost laughable behavior of maklelan and Will. It didn't take long to figure out, unfortunately, that maklelan acts like this as a matter of regular practice, and, well, we all know Will.

So, yeah, I will say some stuff. It could be right; it could be wrong. I am not overly invested in this at all. Let the best theory win, I say. But watching these two guys bluster around and get all church-lady is like watching the frustrated middle-aged, wish-I-had-played-college-ball elder taking a church tournament too seriously while I am out to have fun. He's throwing elbows and we are laughing and shaking our heads.

If these guys want to get serious, they should quit playing games with their arguments and evidence. I am tired of hearing about conditions, questions, withheld arguments, and forthcoming evidence. I think Chris Smith is probably taking the right approach here. Wait until they actually come out with something we can really look at instead of enduring all of this pussy-footing around and coyness.

I'll be serious when they start behaving like people who should be taken seriously.

_________________“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”

The irony of this statement is of such a magnitude that nothing, or at least very little I could say could render its rib tickling value any more obvious than it already is in its pure, unalloyed form.

_________________Nothing is going to startle us more when we pass through the veil to the other side than to realize how well we know our Father [in Heaven] and how familiar his face is to us

- President Ezra Taft Benson

I am so old that I can remember when most of the people promoting race hate were white.

The irony of this statement is of such a magnitude that nothing, or at least very little I could say could render its rib tickling value any more obvious than it already is in its pure, unalloyed form.

You really are incapable of typing a post without consulting your "word of the day" calendar, aren't you? You seem very insecure...

BTW kevin, fantastic OP...thanks for the work.

_________________"your reasoning that children should be experimented upon to justify a political agenda..is tantamount to the Nazi justification for experimenting on human beings."-SUBgenius on gay parents"I've stated over and over again on this forum and fully accept that I'm a bigot..." - ldsfaqs

Well, Will takes pride in his list, racking up academics who support his crazy theses, and he was insulted that you, an academic, weren't convinced.

Logically, that makes you spineless. Right? ;)

I mean it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that only BYU academics are backing him up.

Well, frankly, I don't even know why I should feel insulted by this because it is really all so silly. First of all, I am a historian, not a text critic. Second, I have never closely examined the KEP. So, I readily admit that I could be absolutely wrong about everything. I see this as something of recreational interest. If anything, I am mostly surprised by the almost laughable behavior of maklelan and Will. It didn't take long to figure out, unfortunately, that maklelan acts like this as a matter of regular practice, and, well, we all know Will.

So, yeah, I will say some stuff. It could be right; it could be wrong. I am not overly invested in this at all. Let the best theory win, I say. But watching these two guys bluster around and get all church-lady is like watching the frustrated middle-aged, wish-I-had-played-college-ball elder taking a church tournament too seriously while I am out to have fun. He's throwing elbows and we are laughing and shaking our heads.

If these guys want to get serious, they should quit playing games with their arguments and evidence. I am tired of hearing about conditions, questions, withheld arguments, and forthcoming evidence. I think Chris Smith is probably taking the right approach here. Wait until they actually come out with something we can really look at instead of enduring all of this pussy-footing around and coyness.

I'll be serious when they start behaving like people who should be taken seriously.

Man! Sometimes I read your posts and I find myself wondering what thread you've been reading! Is it really possible for someone to be so deliberately blind to the strongest arguments and evidence? I guess it is here in Wonderland.

_________________... she said that she was ready to drive up to Salt Lake City and confront ... Church leaders ... while well armed. The idea was ... dropped ... [because] she didn't have a 12 gauge with her.-DrW about his friends (Link)

Once this question is answered honestly, it kinda puts a damper on the whole "strong argument" claim to begin with.

Just settle down children, this will all be settled soon enough. ;)

Nomad is basically a vapid cheerleader. He's quick to claim totally victory for the apologists, and quick to claim critics have been "pwned", but I doubt he could summarize, in his own words, just what that clear victory or pwnage is.

_________________ We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

_________________[Isaac Hale] - Joseph Smith Jr. resided near me for some time... the "Book of Mormon" (so called) is a silly fabrication of of falsehood and wickedness, got up for speculation, and with a design to dupe the credulous and unwary—and in order that its fabricators might live upon the spoils of those who swallowed the deception.

Book of Abraham– “I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”Ms1a – “I sought for mine appointment whereunto unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”Ms1b – “I sought for mine appointment whereunto unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God”

Problem: "Whereunto" is crossed out and corrected in transition by both scribes. "Thine" is crossed out replaced with "mine" by both scribes. It is possible that "mine" was a secondary correction, but "unto" was clearly made in transition.

Proposed Explanations:

1. In our view, the text was dictated, the speaker corrected the scribes and they made the correction in transition.

2. In the Hauglid view, these men were copying some source document and either (a) decided to make a xerox copy of an error-ridden text or (b) they just happened to make the same exact mistakes while copying a non error-ridden sourcve document.

3. In the Schryver view these were "secondary emendations" (Will believes all similar corrections are the result of secondary emendations) which means someone came along afterwards and scribbled in the correction. This also means that in order for Will's theory to work, then the scribes had to have had the foreknowledge that the word "whereunto" would be corrected as soon as they finished writing it down, so they wrote it down anyway, and then proceeded to provide the corresponding corrections.

I noticed that sock puppet and Trevor agree that your analysis in this matter is quite reasonable.

We all agree that there are only two possible ways wherein the words “whereunto unto” was penned and only one of these can be the correct answer:

1. The two words were penned first and the strikeout occurred later2. The strikeout occurred immediately after the first word was penned followed by the second word

It can be argued that the source of the two words “whereunto unto” in the KEP manuscripts were copied from a mysterious parent document or were written simultaneously according to oral dictation. There is no question that Joseph Smith is the original author of the story and his scribes assisted him in putting it in written form.

The first argument (favored by LDS apologists) must take into consideration how the two words (anomaly) from an authoritative parent document were originally produced. Did Joseph Smith original pen the anomaly or for whatever reason did a scribe write it? Either answer will beg further questions on why the anomaly was committed and will certainly cause unwanted trouble for the apologists.

Let us assume that Joseph Smith himself wrote the original anomaly on a mysterious parent document. Again, we are left to wonder if the strikeout in the first word occurred before or after the second word was penned. If the strikeout occurred first (as dblagent007 reasonably demonstrated) then it can be concluded that Joseph was simply correcting himself in an effort to tell the story as he saw fit. If the strikeout occurred anytime later then we can determine that the writing was fluid and that Joseph was not only sloppy but more or less incoherently musing about as he invented his story.

Joseph Smith was not altogether unfamiliar with the word “whereunto” because it was included in his revelatory vocabulary. This word is mentioned 5 times in the Triple Combination, with the exception of Abr 1:2, the other accounts were recorded prior to the discover of the papyrus: . . . the ministry whereunto you have been called D&C 30: 2 1830; in the office whereunto I have appointed him D&C 42: 10 1831; in the office whereunto I have appointed you D&C 54: 2 1831; magnify the calling whereunto I have called you D&C 88: 80 1832). The word is also utilized twice in The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith in one case he quotes the apostle Paul in 1843 and the other he says, “that we may be enabled to do the work whereunto we are called” 1830-1834) Joseph Smith’s revelatory vocabulary was far more familiar with the word “unto” whereby it is used 378 times in the Triple Combination and 379 times in the Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith!

Nonetheless, the bottom line is that the apologists are stuck with the fact that “whereunto unto” came from their Spirit moved prophet while either writing it down himself or dictating it to his scribes before the manuscripts in question were written. Either way, it is an embarrassment to the church because it tends to show that the Almighty God was not being conveyed too well to Joseph Smith while he wrote or spoke to his scribes.

So, I’d like to see the apologists offer their thoughts about how it was the scribes were making copies of an error ridden authoritative document that contains an idiotic statement that God would never say.

I’m certainly not qualified to comment on specifics of the KEP, but I will say this: I find it utterly astounding, and a somewhat disturbing commentary on human nature and the ability to sustain belief, that defenders of the faith find Will’s theory so powerful that they seem to truly believe critics have been “pwned” by him in these arguments. In my view, he’s making some very awkward arguments, such as the one that Paul just summarized. At what point is common sense allowed to intervene?

_________________ We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

I’m certainly not qualified to comment on specifics of the KEP, but I will say this: I find it utterly astounding, and a somewhat disturbing commentary on human nature and the ability to sustain belief, that defenders of the faith find Will’s theory so powerful that they seem to truly believe critics have been “pwned” by him in these arguments. In my view, he’s making some very awkward arguments, such as the one that Paul just summarized. At what point is common sense allowed to intervene?

Especially in the case of Joseph Smith dictations do we see this kind of thing. As has been widely reported, the Book of Mormon original manuscript contained virtually no editing whatsoever! No punctuation. No paragraph breaks. It was essentially a single long sentence that ran on for hundreds of pages, with all kinds of nonsensical stuff left uncorrected. And when the printer's manuscript was created, it was reproduced as more or less an exact copy of the original. Only when the copy was completed did Cowdery then go back and correct all of the errors.”

Well lack of punctuation in the Book of Mormon is easily explainable. There is no reason to avoid all punctuation however by doing so it would appear like ancient Hebrew in the bible which lacked of punctuation. "And it came to pass" in the bible/ancient Hebrew was used to denote a new paragraph. I don’t know the extent of the punctuation for the Book of Abraham manuscripts, I did see a comma in a small section so I assume they applied punctuation such as periods to end sentences.

Quote:

I had an interesting conversation with Royal Skousen this past weekend. You see, we've known for quite a while that virtually all of the emendations in Ab2 and Ab3 (Metcalfe's BA1a and BA1b) are secondary; they were made after all of the underlying text was copied from its parent source. For a long time, that seemed to be a problematic conclusion to foist on people, since it meant that the scribes had to have written, verbatim, passages like the following:Quote... I sought for the appointment whereunto unto the Priesthood ...

... which manner of figures was called by the Egyptians, Chaldeans, Rahleenos ...

... and this because their hearts are turn they have turned their hearts away ...

... and also Noah his father, for in his days, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth ...

It is natural to think that no scribe would do such a thing--reproduce what amounted to nonsensical phrases into the copy he was making of a manuscript. But, as it turns out, that is precisely what scribes DID do!

[/quote]

Which means with analogous errors for the Book of Mormon it indicates they likely copied from a preprepared manuscript.

That's right, William boy. I'm given over to the pleasures of life and it feels sooooo good. Maybe I'll check that thread out and maybe I won't. That remains to be seen. I'll check with the devil and see what he wants me to do.

William, have you sipped a little of the new Crown Royal Black whiskey? It's pretty smooth and extra rich tasting. I pray you try a little this weekend, my brother. You and I are bonded in LSD. You can never undo that. You know that to be true.

Problem: The two scribes do not transcribe this word the same way. According to Brent's analysis, "both Williams and Parrish correct inadvertent errors: Williams initially spelled the deity's name with a lowcase s and then corrected it to an uppercase S; Parrish intially spelled the name with two a's (i.e., "Shagral") he then erased the second "a" and overwrote it with to e's; note also that Parrish initally confused the homonyms son and sun."

Proposed Explanations:1. In our view, the scribes were transcribing a dictated text, weren't sure how the word should appear on paper, and used their best judgment according to the manner in which the speaker pronunciated it. (The person dictating probably paused slightly in the middle of pronouncing the word, thus Williams divied the word with = and - respectively. He also mistook sun for son, as one might expect in a dictated text.)

2. In the Schryver/Hauglid view these two men were copying a source document, and Williams must have hallucinated for a brief moment, seeing "=" in the middle of the word.

The apologist is faced with more problems in trying to explain how anomalies can be rational to the critical thinker. However, if one already has a testimony of the restored gospel, meaning that the church is true no matter what, then the apologist has a fairly easy task explaining things away.

But looking at the differences of the two manuscripts forces the copyist believers to confess that they cannot prove exactly what was on the so-called mysterious parent manuscript. The so-called copies produced by the expert scribes is certainly no Xerox copy of the master document and tends to show a general sloppiness or carefree attitude in making an exact copy of a document laying right in one’s face on a table graced with a divinely appointed pen and a sacred bottle of ink. I should think that apologists who favor the copyist theory may honestly wonder why Joseph Smith didn’t fire them for their lack of attention to detail.

But the dictation theory defends incompetent scribes who sat at Joseph Smith’s private table. The dictation theory makes it easy to understand how one could confuse an oral utterance of son or sun. The copyist theory would be justified in firing a careless scribe for such gross incompetence. The differences between these two words (son & sun) are like night and day. For me, it’s really hard to imagine that a studious scribe sitting at the table where new scripture is being produced under the direction of the greatest prophet since Peter would screw a son with a sun.

The whole LDS apologetic argument is highly suspect and no one but the Mormons believe it.

That's the reason I'm astounded, Will. It doesn't take any expertise to recognize that your theory, in certain areas, is quite awkward, and even inconsistent.

For example: what expertise does it require to recognize the inconsistency in this:

a - you assert that Joseph Smith et al viewed Egyptian as synonymous with "pure language"b - you assert that Joseph Smith et al were attempting to construct a "pure language"c - that had nothing to do with Egyptiand - because elements contained no Egyptian characters

There is no expertise required to recognize that if Joseph Smith et al believed Egyptian was synonymous with pure language, and they were attempting to construct a pure language, then it absolutely had something to do with Egyptian AND it didn't matter if it didn't contain Egyptian characters because no one was there to tell them that the characters they were including were not Egyptian characters. So if Joseph Smith, through revelation or relying on sources that he believed had Egyptian roots (Masonry), added characters he believed, or claimed, to be Egyptian, no one could prove that they weren't.

And what expertise does it require to recognize that Paul and Will are correct when they assert that your theory requiring the scribes to insert a mistake immediately followed by a correction but only later inserting the strike-out is odd on its face, and quite illogical. Why would the scribes only go back later, when they would have to wade through the text, to insert the strike-out? That makes no sense. That's why I said "at what point is common sense allowed to intervene?"

Now, maybe your theory will actually turn out to be correct. I don't know. I'm not qualified to judge that, and neither are your cheerleaders, with few exceptions. My point is that your theory isn't an obvious slam dunk, because it does contain inconsistencies such as above, and it does require the existence of a mysterious, previously unknown document. That's not a slam dunk, and yet your cheerleaders act as if you've delivered a massive slam dunk that critics are ridiculous not to concede. If your theory is correct, it is yet to be proven, and you have to deal with these inconsistencies and other issues pointed out. And you know that, because you keep alluding to your future work which will, supposedly, deliver the REAL slam dunk.

If you have yet to deliver the REAL slam dunk, why do your cheerleaders act as if it's already been scored?

We all know the answer to that, don't we?

You mentioned earlier that you believers "know what is at stake". I think that you, and other defenders of the faith now quivering in ecstasy over your imaginary slam dunk, actually realized that the critical arguments against the Book of Abraham are devastating, despite your bluster otherwise. So you, and other believers, are extremely emotionally invested in this theory because you think it's your only chance to make a dent in those devastating critiques. Your emotional investment is just too high to recognize that what you've presented, to this point, is far from a slam dunk precisely because it contains problems that even someone with only cursory knowledge on the issue can recognize.

OTOH, for critics, this issue is by and large peripheral. If your theory turns out to be correct, its impact will be minor. The papyri still don't match the Book of Abraham. That's why this has been one of the most entertaining episodes in As LDS Apology Turns in a long time, and for that I thank you.

_________________ We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.

The differences between these two words (son & sun) are like night and day.

Unfortunately, for your argument, Metcalfe has long been misrepresenting the evidence, and no one has ever bothered to verify his claims.

The first instance is not "son" at all. It is "sun." Indeed, what we're really dealing with at that locus is either another dittograph, or (if not a dittograph) merely a case where Parrish wrote "sun" poorly and therefore decided to re-do it. In any case, there is no "o" between the "s" and the "n". It is clearly a "u". It is not a case of homophonic mishearing.

And so another of the so-called "evidences for dictation" bites the dust--along with all the rest.

I have now carefully analyzed each of the alleged evidences for dictation as they have frequently been cited by you and Graham. All of them are examples of what I talk about in the post I linked above: Secondary Emendations in Ab2 and Ab3

_________________... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

That's the reason I'm astounded, Will. It doesn't take any expertise to recognize that your theory, in certain areas, is quite awkward, and even inconsistent.

For example: what expertise does it require to recognize the inconsistency in this:

a - you assert that Joseph Smith et al viewed Egyptian as synonymous with "pure language"b - you assert that Joseph Smith et al were attempting to construct a "pure language"c - that had nothing to do with Egyptiand - because elements contained no Egyptian characters

There is no expertise required to recognize that if Joseph Smith et al believed Egyptian was synonymous with pure language, and they were attempting to construct a pure language, then it absolutely had something to do with Egyptian AND it didn't matter if it didn't contain Egyptian characters because no one was there to tell them that the characters they were including were not Egyptian characters. So if Joseph Smith, through revelation or relying on sources that he believed had Egyptian roots (Masonry), added characters he believed, or claimed, to be Egyptian, no one could prove that they weren't.

And what expertise does it require to recognize that Paul and Will are correct when they assert that your theory requiring the scribes to insert a mistake immediately followed by a correction but only later inserting the strike-out is odd on its face, and quite illogical. Why would the scribes only go back later, when they would have to wade through the text, to insert the strike-out? That makes no sense. That's why I said "at what point is common sense allowed to intervene?"

Now, maybe your theory will actually turn out to be correct. I don't know. I'm not qualified to judge that, and neither are your cheerleaders, with few exceptions. My point is that your theory isn't an obvious slam dunk, because it does contain inconsistencies such as above, and it does require the existence of a mysterious, previously unknown document. That's not a slam dunk, and yet your cheerleaders act as if you've delivered a massive slam dunk that critics are ridiculous not to concede. If your theory is correct, it is yet to be proven, and you have to deal with these inconsistencies and other issues pointed out. And you know that, because you keep alluding to your future work which will, supposedly, deliver the REAL slam dunk.

If you have yet to deliver the REAL slam dunk, why do your cheerleaders act as if it's already been scored?

We all know the answer to that, don't we?

You mentioned earlier that you believers "know what is at stake". I think that you, and other defenders of the faith now quivering in ecstasy over your imaginary slam dunk, actually realized that the critical arguments against the Book of Abraham are devastating, despite your bluster otherwise. So you, and other believers, are extremely emotionally invested in this theory because you think it's your only chance to make a dent in those devastating critiques. Your emotional investment is just too high to recognize that what you've presented, to this point, is far from a slam dunk precisely because it contains problems that even someone with only cursory knowledge on the issue can recognize.

OTOH, for critics, this issue is by and large peripheral. If your theory turns out to be correct, its impact will be minor. The papyri still don't match the Book of Abraham. That's why this has been one of the most entertaining episodes in As LDS Apology Turns in a long time, and for that I thank you.

I find the degree of your misunderstandings and misinterpretations of my arguments to be rather stunning. Or at least they would be did they not proceed from you.

The real beauty of my findings is their simplicity and the way they serve to harmonize all of the textual and historical evidence. This is why they will continue to have potent explanatory value into the future, long after the anti-intellectual rantings of the GSTP have been forgotten.

_________________... every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol ...

And so another of the so-called "evidences for dictation" bites the dust--along with all the rest.

It’s not over, William. If I wanted to I could fire a whole arsenal of weapons against you at anytime and overwhelm you.

Now, I trust you are somewhat familiar with the contents of MS 1b, page R. You think that Parrish was simply copying from a parent document and I think he was writing by way of oral dictation. Now, perhaps you will be kind enough to tell me who Warren Parrish had in mind as he wrote the word “THEY” on line 22. Does the “THEY” refer to the virgins or the priests?

Hint: Do notice the word and location of the word “WERE” on the same line. Now, go think about it for a while. That way I have some time to laugh at you while you scratch your head.